Is it dangerous

[DCP]

Is it dangerous to load and fire light loads, gallery or cat sneeze loads?

30-06 2-grains 700x 800fps 100 grain bullet
No filler
(or any fast burning power)

Just got of the phone with a lead bullet manufacture said it was extremely dangerous
He said Cowboy action shooters are blowing up guns all the time this way.

He said the powder is exploding not burning because it doesn’t fill the case

None of my case show any signs of excessive pressure

Lyman cast handbook
Starts a 113-grain bullet at 10 grains 700x in a 30-06
Starts a 249 gain bullet a 6 grains 700x in a 38-55

These don’t fill the case either.

There are a lot of 700x loads out there that don’t fill the case
I have done 303, 762 x 54, 38-55, 38 and 357 loads with either a round ball or a light bullet.

So what is he talking about?

[theperfessor]

I would bet some of those "Cowboy guns" that are blowing up are doing it from sticking a squib bullet in the barrel and firing the next round - or two. Or double charging a case without noticing it.

And in an autoloader, telescoping a loose bullet down into the case during feeding can cause pressure problems.

Is detonation vs proper combustion of a powder charge possible? I don't know, but I bet a lot of gun damage is blamed on "detonation" when the problem is poor loading practices.

[buck1]

From what I hear....
Heres how it works, Fireing pin sets off the primer but the flame jumps over the powder, the boolit jumps foward and sticks in the throat , now the powder charge goes off with the barrel basicly pluged. BOOM! All you have left is a story that no one will belive, and a dead gun/hurt people.
It wont happen that often and its hard to duplicate. But it can and does happen.

[Centaur 1]

From what I hear....
Heres how it works, Fireing pin sets off the primer but the flame jumps over the powder, the boolit jumps foward and sticks in the throat , now the powder charge goes off with the barrel basicly pluged. BOOM! All you have left is a story that no one will belive, and a dead gun/hurt people.
It wont happen that often and its hard to duplicate. But it can and does happen.

I'm totally new at this myself, but I love the idea of ultra light loads. You use less lead, powder and money and we get to shoot our favorite guns a lot more often without getting beat up from recoil. It's been my understanding, and I'm putting it out there in case I'm wrong, that some powders are better suited for light loads. I hope that I haven't been mislead but I've been using Unique for all of my light loads. I've been playing around with 110 grain half jackets with 6-7 grains of Unique and 150 grain cast bullets with 7-9 grains of powder in my 30-30. I'm super careful not to double charge, I take a case from the left, charge it, then place on my right. I also look down into all of the cases with a flashlight, when they're all together in a tray it should be noticeable if one is double charged. If I have any doubt at all I dump out the questionable case into a tray on my scale, then pour it back into the case. The idea of being able to shoot my Marlin 336 for about $50 per thousand rounds, makes the extra work worthwhile.

[selmerfan]

buck1, not to dispute the espoused theory, but I've fired off more than one cartridge (pick your poison, .30-06, .308, .30-30, .243, .357 max and mag, .38 Spec, .454 Casull) with only a primer in it and I have yet to EVER have the bullet leave the case, and the rifle loads aren't ever crimped. I have a hard time buying that theory, I have a much easier time seeing a double charge of a fast burning powder in a large case. SEE is far more common with undercharges of slow burning powders.

[35remington]

The problem with these "extra light load blowups" is that the potential energy of the powder isn't high enough to "blow up" the guns. 2 grains of 700X, Bullseye, or whatever, should it be converted to energy with 100 percent efficiency, doesn't have the suds to get it done.

The molecular reaction for an explosion is considerably different than what gunpowder is capable of attaining in these teeny charges. The structure just isn't there.

Thus we have the faddish internet "flashover detonation" theory, which sounds like it was dreamt up by someone sitting on a toilet who forgot his usual magazine and needed something to do to occupy his mind while passing the previous night's dinner.

This much is true, unquestionably:

When a gun blows up, the most likely and most plausible reason is a reloading mistake....but it's human preference to believe in UFO's, conspiracy theories and also to dream up complicated, non reproducible "explanations" to describe events that most likely had another cause.

It is very, very common, on this board, for many users to use light loads of fast powders (e.g. Bullseye, Red Dot, 700X) at the 3 grain charge levels in large cases like the 30-06.

If this was inherently dangerous, you'd hear of a lot more problems. You don't. The rare "claim" of a "flashover detonation" seems to occur at exactly the same rate as firearm blowups in general.....and truthfully, the person describing the event can't verify it to any degree, so the claim is conjecture. A handloading error does a better job of explaining it than a never proven theory.

"Blowups" of light charges of fast burning powder in large cases has been theorized for probably seventy years or more. Light charges continue to be recommended by knowledgeable handloaders; if there was a problem inherent in this use we'd have discovered it by now.

In all that time, no results have been achieved corroborating the "fast powders blow up in light charges" theory.

You have to wonder why.

[mooman76]

Nothing has ever been proven so there are just theories out there on what happens. They generally say you should use powders on the fast side of the scale. The theory I heard and is sound good to me is that the powder does a partial burn and the bullet travels into the barrel before burning completely or reaching full preasure. Then by the time the rest of the powder finishes burning, the bullet has satarted to slow down some, you have a pressure spike an explosion results. That's why they say don't use medium or slow powders.

[damron g]

"with only a primer in it and I have yet to EVER have the bullet leave the case, and the rifle loads aren't ever crimped."

100% accurate so don't believe those old wives tales

if you don't believe it try it yourself.Its nearly impossible to get a bullet with any sort of neck tension out of a rifle case very much with only a primer,even a Fed #215.
The best you get with loose neck tension is slightly out of the case and just barely in the throat.

about a week ago i tried to do it in a 30-06 to settle an argument.Bullets stayed put.

George

[lwknight]

I think that the secondary detonation theory is bunk myself.
Howerver , I can attest to the fact that light loads or too light a bullet with slower powders can be radical.
One example is with WSF in 9mm most any bullet works just fine. In 38spl 158 grain bullets are just fine even at low charges. But, in a 38 spl 110 grain bullets are crazy unpredictable.
Add more powder and get slower velocities. One round goes 450 fps and the next goes 800.

By contrast 2 grains of bullseye with a 100 grain bullet is accurate and always about the same predictable velocity.

[lwknight]

Small capacity cases will definately stick a bullet in the barrel but I also doubt that a 30-06 sized cartridge will even move the bullet out of the case with primer only.

[steg]

selmerfan, one time I missed charging a case in .38 spl, the boolit did leave the case but just far enough to lock up the cylider. I shoot alot of cat sneeze loads, even going down to 2 Gr of red dot and a 158 Gr SWC, I've never had a problem, and their great for kids, Their shooting the same gun hat Daddy shoots kind of thing..............steg

[damron g]

Small capacity cases will definately stick a bullet in the barrel

i'll try it in my Ruger #1 357 mag tonight.I never have tried it in smaller rifle cases and am curious.it does make sense.

George

[lwknight]

I stuck bullets deep into the barrel with 9mm and the 38s just locked up the cylinder.
I had to beat the boolit back into the cylinder to open it.

Thats what I got from a malfunctioning dillon before I learned to not trust it so much.

[Echo]

My limited experience (not with my own loads, or my own gun) is that a revolver may easily end up locked up if fired with just a primer. The boolit tends to jump into the forcing cone, stops, and ties up the gun until it is forced back into the case by pounding a near-bore sized rod down the muzzle.

[kmag]

I have been reading about "detonation" when using small charges of powder for over 50 years. I think if it true one of the powder companys could have proven the fact thier labs, and they have not been able to do it. I think most of the problems with fast burning powders is due to double or triple charges. The only firearm that I have seen blown up was a single action 44 mag. The owner had his powder measurer set for a heavy charge of Unique but had by mistake filled it with Bullseye. I can't tell you how many 38 specials, I loaded for my son when he was young, with 1.5 gr of bullseye and a 148 hbwc. I would like to find someone who can cause a detonation in a controlled expierment.

[Idahoshooter]

Stuck bullets and double charges seem to be best bet for all those blown guns we eep hearing talk about. I suspect that small charges of slower powders cause lots of problems with proper ignition and huge spreads of velocity shot to shot and could stick bullets in barrels. of course those copper condom bullets should not be loaded below minimum me thinks. Just my 2 cents. :)

[PAT303]

I've been shooting lee's 90swc in my 303 with 5grns of trail boss and at 25mtrs they go through one hole.I have found that pistol primers without question shoot tigher than large rifle primers with that light a load. Pat

[Bass Ackward]

These threads always cause a chuckle for me.

1. Shooters have chosen a sport where every single time they / you pull the trigger, they are igniting a potentially explosive situation and then they ask, is this dangerous?

2. Why won't they prove it? Why? Would you prove your product was dangerous in this political environment? What else you got to go to? I mean everyone of them has published articles and books many times over called loading manuals as to what THEY call .... RIFLE powders and minimum charge levels. Is there a hint there maybe?

3. Why do you suppose that Lyman was the only one brazen enough to publish cast stuff? Wonder why it took almost 50 years to get a new manual? :grin:

4. Hodgdon tells you not to go below 80% case fill for every rifle powder with one exception, 4895 which can go to 60%. Is there a hint there?

5. Why do you think that we have cartridges referred to as good cast calibers? Is the 30-378 Wby on that list? Many of the same guys that go through mental thought processes and eliminate a cartridge such as a 30-378 Wby for cast have absolutely no qualms about establishing "cat sneeze" loads that establishes the same or even WORSE powder to case capacity ratios.

6. How many shotgun loads you see with non compressed charges? Ever wonder why?

7. Should the industry sacrifice itself and everybody else in the sport because some guys have to be beat over the head with a club? Nope, just play the statistics and blame them for a double charge or anything else that sounds good at the time and quickly move on.

Yaz steps up to the wheel and yaz laz your money down and you spin the wheel. Here the odds are on your side. Then when they blow one every once in awhile, "quietly" point'em to ol #1 above and say, Hint, Hint.

[excess650]

Small capacity cases will definately stick a bullet in the barrel

i'll try it in my Ruger #1 357 mag tonight.I never have tried it in smaller rifle cases and am curious.it does make sense.

George

Don't bother, George. I've tried charges as light as 1.2gr of Solo 1000 and Clays in the 32-20 under the 118gr 311008 bullet. It takes at least 1.8gr to reliably get the bullet to exit the muzzle. 2.0gr can shoot pretty accurately at 50 yards! A primer won't even fully push a bullet into the rifling.

[Alex Hamilton]

Is it dangerous to load and fire light loads, gallery or cat sneeze loads?

30-06 2-grains 700x 800fps 100 grain bullet
No filler
(or any fast burning power)

Just got of the phone with a lead bullet manufacture said it was extremely dangerous
He said Cowboy action shooters are blowing up guns all the time this way.

He said the powder is exploding not burning because it doesn’t fill the case

None of my case show any signs of excessive pressure

Lyman cast handbook
Starts a 113-grain bullet at 10 grains 700x in a 30-06
Starts a 249 gain bullet a 6 grains 700x in a 38-55

These don’t fill the case either.

There are a lot of 700x loads out there that don’t fill the case
I have done 303, 762 x 54, 38-55, 38 and 357 loads with either a round ball or a light bullet.

So what is he talking about?
Hi, DCP,
There are several theories as to what causes detonation, but the fact is that no one has yet managed to cause one intentionally. However, it is more likely to happen with low chages of slow powders and the thinking there is that the powder gets ignited all at once and behaves like fast powder. This is the theory that has not been conclusively proved.

With fast powders like Bullseye, Red Dot, Vihtavuori N310 etc., the powder combustion is complete almost before the bullet leaves the case, so we have a mini-detonation with every shot.....and it cannot get worse if you tried![smilie=s:

To see how much is bullet is pushed into the rifling by the primer, why not load one round in each calibre without powder and try it. I have in 308Win and 303Brit and have found that the primer alone did not move cast lead boolits at all. With jacketed (Molycoated) bullets it moved them forward enough to just touch the rifling or not at all if the neck tension was right. In fact, I am convinced that the primer shunts the bullet forward every time where it pauses until the pressure builds up to move it. That is why you get optimum accuracy when the bullet is seated as close to the rifling as possible - so that the primer shunts it forward, where it is perfectly aligned with the bore before the main "explosion" pushes it out of the barrel.

If you get a bullet stuck in the bore and you fire another light load on top, you will almost certainly bulge the barrel and ruin it. However, firing a full load cartridge into a blocked barrel will blow something - barrel probably.

I agree with the earlier poster that the blow ups are most probably caused by double charging. There is also the danger that some powders have a tendency to "bridge" the powder-though funnel on progressive presses, so one gets a greatly reduced charge, followed by an overcharge. Accurate 5744 has a tendency to clump up in the measure hopper (as if affected by static), so I will not use it in my Dillon 550B. Instead I measure each charge individually on scales.

You just have to be extra careful with very light charges, so that you do not overcharge nor get the bullet stuck in the bore.

And if in any doubt post a message here with the details.

Good Shooting,

Alex

[mroliver77]

I agree with Alex and the others that posted basically the same thing. I shoot lots of "weenie" rounds and the one problem I had was caused by me double charging. I broke the rules by talking with a buddy and loading one at a time and shooting out of the upstairs puter room window. Wife was asking questions, the kid was crying, dog was barking, phone a ringing, music a blaring, too much coffee and shooting 8gr Unique in a .223 NEF Handi rifle under some reformed 40 gr Hornet boolits that we swaged to a double ended wadcutter. Devastating on rabbits at 30 -50 yards. Well I doubler charged on and it sounded funny. I noticed the action had opened itself. Side of case where extractor is was blown out the exact shape of extractor cut in barrel shearing off the extractor and venting the gas safely down and away. I was going to give up reloading, flog myself, give all my guns away and start drinking again. I sent it to NEF with a note telling the TRUTH about what I had done. The fixed it and sent it back no charge!
BTW it is good to see you back on here Alex. I have been on other forums with you back to the mid 90's. Cannot remember the group name but it evolved into a yahoo cast bullet group.
Jay

[excess650]

I agree with the earlier poster that the blow ups are most probably caused by double charging. There is also the danger that some powders have a tendency to "bridge" the powder-though funnel on progressive presses, so one gets a greatly reduced charge, followed by an overcharge. Accurate 5744 has a tendency to clump up in the measure hopper (as if affected by static), so I will not use it in my Dillon 550B. Instead I measure each charge individually on scales.

You just have to be extra careful with very light charges, so that you do not overcharge nor get the bullet stuck in the bore.

And if in any doubt post a message here with the details.

Good Shooting,

Alex

I've been shooting quite a bit of AA5744 and never had it stick in the hopper of my Redding, nor has it bridged in the drop tube. While I've not used 5744 in my Dillon 550, I've not had any other powder adhere to the hopper, either.

I did once double charge a 223 with 2400. 23gr of 2400 behind a 55gr jacketed bullet is NOT recommended! It expanded the small primer to large rifle primer size, and extruded the case head out into the extractor cut where it jammed the Win Model 70 bolt closed. I spoke to a ballistician abot it, and he was certain that 2400 would not have reacted in that manner unless overloaded. 11.5gr of 2400 simply doesn't have enough energy to cause that sort of failure.

The ASSRA guys occcasionally experience "ringed chambers". Charlie Dell did quite a bit of experimenting, and came to the conclusion that an over powder wad holding the powder perpendicular to the case head could cause such a ring by way of the symmetrical shockwave, ala water hammer. He managed to duplicate the same by firing vertically without the over powder wad.

I shoot some ultralight loads, but not with ball powder.

[BrianB]

Like a lot of you guys, I have heard a lot about detonation with light loads blowing up guns. Problem is, I have never seen it, never met anyone who has seen it, never met anyone who knew of anyone who has seen it. On the other hand, you don't have to go far to find someone who saw a ghost, a UFO or Elvis.

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

While fire laping a couple of my revolvers, I would take a 158 grain swc, and put 0.8gr of bullseye, and it would exit the barrel and go up to 50 feet . . . 1.0 gr would send them out about 300 feet! 0.7 would get stuck in the barrel, and I would need to drive it out the last half an inch or so. I would only load one at a time, and after each shot confirm that the barrel was free . . .

[Char-Gar]

I don't know about folks blowing up Cowboy guns wholesale, but I suspect some of the other posters nailed it dead center.

Now this SEE business is real. It has been well known among the artillery men for generations. When it comes to rifles, it has happened but rairly. It takes a less that full load of slow burning powder to do the deed and then not often.

In the case of the original poster, I should think his only real concern is sticking a bullet in the barrel. He need to have enough pressure to do the deed, 100% of the time.

[Recluse]

"with only a primer in it and I have yet to EVER have the bullet leave the case, and the rifle loads aren't ever crimped."

100% accurate so don't believe those old wives tales

Rifle rounds, yes. Pistol rounds, no.

In the past thirty plus years, I've had more squibs than I care to confess to in my pistol caliber reloads. With the exception of a couple of runs using a faulty piece of powder-measuring/dropping equipment, they were all my fault for being in a hurry with the progressives.

But in all calibers I've had squibs (.380, .38Spcl, 9mm, .45ACP), without fail, the boolit left the case and made it into the barrel--causing me much swearing and having to break the gun down and take my brass tapping rod out to remove the boolit.

Never had that happen in a rifle caliber, though.

:coffee:

[StarMetal]

These threads always cause a chuckle for me.

1. Shooters have chosen a sport where every single time they / you pull the trigger, they are igniting a potentially explosive situation and then they ask, is this dangerous?

2. Why won't they prove it? Why? Would you prove your product was dangerous in this political environment? What else you got to go to? I mean everyone of them has published articles and books many times over called loading manuals as to what THEY call .... RIFLE powders and minimum charge levels. Is there a hint there maybe?

3. Why do you suppose that Lyman was the only one brazen enough to publish cast stuff? Wonder why it took almost 50 years to get a new manual? :grin:

4. Hodgdon tells you not to go below 80% case fill for every rifle powder with one exception, 4895 which can go to 60%. Is there a hint there?

5. Why do you think that we have cartridges referred to as good cast calibers? Is the 30-378 Wby on that list? Many of the same guys that go through mental thought processes and eliminate a cartridge such as a 30-378 Wby for cast have absolutely no qualms about establishing "cat sneeze" loads that establishes the same or even WORSE powder to case capacity ratios.

6. How many shotgun loads you see with non compressed charges? Ever wonder why?

7. Should the industry sacrifice itself and everybody else in the sport because some guys have to be beat over the head with a club? Nope, just play the statistics and blame them for a double charge or anything else that sounds good at the time and quickly move on.

Yaz steps up to the wheel and yaz laz your money down and you spin the wheel. Here the odds are on your side. Then when they blow one every once in awhile, "quietly" point'em to ol #1 above and say, Hint, Hint.

John...good Mary Jame crop this year in Pa? Or are you going to school to become a physicist? :kidding::bigsmyl2:

I can answer your question though about whether the firearms industry is trying to destroy itself. The answer to that is a YES and that's from inside sources. The sources told me we won't have to worry about the anti-gunners taking our guns away from us, the industry is destroying itself from within on it's own.

What's new in the Mon Valley?

[DCP]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bass Ackward
These threads always cause a chuckle for me.

1. Shooters have chosen a sport where every single time they / you pull the trigger, they are igniting a potentially explosive situation and then they ask, is this dangerous?

2. Why won't they prove it? Why? Would you prove your product was dangerous in this political environment? What else you got to go to? I mean everyone of them has published articles and books many times over called loading manuals as to what THEY call .... RIFLE powders and minimum charge levels. Is there a hint there maybe?

3. Why do you suppose that Lyman was the only one brazen enough to publish cast stuff? Wonder why it took almost 50 years to get a new manual?

4. Hodgdon tells you not to go below 80% case fill for every rifle powder with one exception, 4895 which can go to 60%. Is there a hint there?

5. Why do you think that we have cartridges referred to as good cast calibers? Is the 30-378 Wby on that list? Many of the same guys that go through mental thought processes and eliminate a cartridge such as a 30-378 Wby for cast have absolutely no qualms about establishing "cat sneeze" loads that establishes the same or even WORSE powder to case capacity ratios.

6. How many shotgun loads you see with non compressed charges? Ever wonder why?

7. Should the industry sacrifice itself and everybody else in the sport because some guys have to be beat over the head with a club? Nope, just play the statistics and blame them for a double charge or anything else that sounds good at the time and quickly move on.

Yaz steps up to the wheel and yaz laz your money down and you spin the wheel. Here the odds are on your side. Then when they blow one every once in awhile, "quietly" point'em to ol #1 above and say, Hint, Hint.


John...good Mary Jame crop this year in Pa? Or are you going to school to become a physicist? :kidding::bigsmyl2:

I can answer your question though about whether the firearms industry is trying to destroy itself. The answer to that is a YES and that's from inside sources. The sources told me we won't have to worry about the anti-gunners taking our guns away from us, the industry is destroying itself from within on it's own.

What's new in the Mon Valley?


For those of you who gave your constructive opinions and stayed on topic . I thank you

For (bass) I don't think these posts are a bit funny.
I had legitimate concerns.
You don't help anyone or anything by asking 12 Questions
What is your motive to answer a post like you did?

Have you learned so much you have to be so flip?

[StarMetal]

From what I hear....
Heres how it works, Fireing pin sets off the primer but the flame jumps over the powder, the boolit jumps foward and sticks in the throat , now the powder charge goes off with the barrel basicly pluged. BOOM! All you have left is a story that no one will belive, and a dead gun/hurt people.
It wont happen that often and its hard to duplicate. But it can and does happen.

Okay since we have to keep this on topic I'll say something on this post here. Theoretically when a bullet is up the bore some that's just an example of a case with a much larger capacity. A bore obstruction is an obstruction when another bullet is trying to come down the bore. We know what happens then.

Some members that still a bullet in the bore load another case with just the primer and some powder and no bullet and fire the stuck bullet out like it was a giant capacity case. Do you see what I am trying to convey? An example would be a large case like a 45-70 with a small volume charge . Lot's of space between that powder and the bullet.

[brotherdarrell]

In the past two weeks I have managed to stick five boolits in two different guns while trying cat sneeze loads. The two guns were a rem 788 222 and a marlin 45/70. Both loads were with bullseye, that is one of the 222 loads was with BE, the other was just a primer.

The boolit in the 222 was a lyman 225415 lubed with LLA and shot as cast @ .225. The load with only the primer put the boolit about 4" down the barrel and another load with powder put the boolit within 4" of exiting the 24" barrel.

In both cases it was very obvious when a bullet did not exit the barrel as there was no noise to speak of upon pulling the trigger. When the boolit did leave the barrel the sound was the same as popping just a primer in an empty case. This was with both guns. I can see that in the case of a revolver where the chamber/barrel is not a sealed unit it may be different. I had one instance last year where I failed to charge a .357 case with a 158 boolit and upon firing the gp100 all I heard was a 'click' of the firing pin hitting the primer, but no sound of the primer going off. The boolit did not budge and the cylinder opened without any problem.

I would also add that in both cases when the boolit did not exit the barrel the cases were covered in powder residue, but those that did leave the barrel were fairly clean.

Having said all this I fully apprieciate that there are risks in cat sneeze loads, and would not neccesarily recommend to everyone. All the loads I have tried were done only after a lot of reading and research on this site. I may only have a few posts but have been reloading since '85. I will also be the first to admit that I have a lot to learn, and this has been the perfect place. Thanxs to all

brother darrell

[dogbert41]

If the science of it were true, couldn't it be duplicated at will?

I like my light .40 loads a lot. I am looking forward to my light 30-06 loads someday.

[lwknight]

I sure do like my 100 grain wadcutters in a 38spl with 2.0 grains bullseye @ about 400 fps.
Now I'm thinking of casting some soft lead and trying even less B.E.

I wonder if soft lead can be gotten to about 200 fps and still clear the barrel everytime?

[Larry Gibson]

....I wonder if soft lead can be gotten to about 200 fps and still clear the barrel everytime?

Yes it can but it is entirely dependant on the weight of the bullet (in your case less is better), the viscosity of the lube, the amount of gritty accumulation of primer residue not blow out and the barrel cylinder gap. At some point, dependant on the first 3, the barrel cylinder gap will vent sufficient gas that there isn't enough pressure left to push the bullet out of the barrel. In closed breach systems you don't have that problem.. I shoot 200 - 210 bullets of pure lead and lightly TL'd in LLA in my .30s, .31s and 8x57s as low as 225 fps without sticking the bullets in the barrels. They are fun but I've found only milsurps with sights adjustable to long volley fire ranges suitable if one wants to zero them at any range from 50 feet out to 50 yards.

If you attempt to go that low with the .38 in the snubbie be very observent for the bullet still in the barrel. I've found the Lee 350105-SWC cast of pure lead to work ok down to 250 fps out of a 4" M15 .38 special. I didn't press lower than that.

Larry Gibson

[Bass Ackward]

dcp,

Flip? Now that's sorta funny too. Because you asked in the first post.

<<So what is he talking about?>>

I gave you 7 points of what he was talking about. I gave you the industry's position on cast some of the logic behind it that he drew from when he told you that. In short, I answered your question. But there are many more points too.

And this guys was in the cast bullet business. Do you think he gets more emotional calls from A: guys happy with his product, or B: from someone that blew his gun up and wants to push the responsibility off on someone else? Which puts him out of business or in jail?

He has no idea of who you are from Adam or what your experience level is. Nor do we. In essence, he told you to follow published data. Which doesn't guarantee anything either as I watched a 257 Wby blow in several pieces from a full case, load that had been worked up in that rifle and used for years. Stuff happens. There are no guarantees.

[damron g]

[QUOTE A primer won't even fully push a bullet into the rifling. ling.[/QUOTE]

that's what i figured.i hear stories of lodged bullets in rifles from primers only and just laugh.Like i said i have never been able to do it in the -06 no matter how hard i try.

George

[lwknight]

I doubt that the 9mm that I stuck was fully into the rifling. I was not in the frame of mind to note details. I just wanted the bullet out of my barrel.

[303Guy]

I have once been able to dislodge a bullet from a 303 Brit case. It stayed in the throat on extraction and jammed the next round. The scary part is what would have happened if the next round had released its bullet back into the case?:!: Well, it didn't and the gun didn't blow up.

However, a more recent incedent has revealed just how dangerous light loads of fast powder can be. I loaded up some squib loads of Bullseye equivalent using a smaller pistol type measure and dutifully keeping the rifle measure empty and only one powder on the bench at a time. Then going back to the rifle powder - filling up the measure with the correct powder, the 'Bullseye' measure having been emptied and the container put away. Well, the first charge went onto the scale and it was way out. A close look revealed 'Bullseye' mixed in with the rifle powder!:!: I know how it got there. I emptied a suspect case of 'Bullseye' into the wrong measure!:holysheep Both powders are the same colour. (Lost quite a bit of powder removing the contamination[smilie=b:).

I would have put the resultant blow-up down to a SEE since it was a reduced load of slower rifle powder with filler.

[PAT303]

The reason Trail Boss was invented was to make it harder to double charge,thats the powder to use with squib loads IMHO. Pat

[DCP]

This site has a wealth of information.

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/arcane1.html

[qajaq59]

I've been loading for 45+ years, so maybe I'm just old fashioned. But in my humble opinion, if it isn't in a loading manual I'm NOT loading it or shooting it. Period.............

[blackthorn]

Well I'm sure some of you are not going to believe me BUT I stuck a jacketed bullet in the bore of my 300 Wby. I was blowing out some 300 H&H cases to fit the WBY and got one with no powder. On firing, there was the sound of the primer going off and then nothing! I waited a bit, opened the rifle and out came the empty case. The bullet was stuck tight enough that I wrecked the bakelilt end on the cleaning rod I used to drive it out.

[Dan Cash]

If one wants ultra light loads, use a .22 rim fire.

[Cap'n Morgan]

I'm with theperfessor and 35remington on this one. Two grains of Bullseye simply doesn't have the necessary energy to wreck havoc on a 30-06 - no matter how you look at it. Even ten times that amount would still be well within safe limits.

On the other hand, a bullet from a squib load stuck halfway down the barrel, and followed by a normal round... all bets are off.

[felix]

SEE happens! The purpose of deterrents is just that, to lower the probably of a SEE which is nothing more that an uncontrolled burn (using our definition of SEE). The deterrent for BP is the spacing between the granules. The deterrent for nuclear reactions is the application of control rods. A primer by our definition is a SEE component by design. ... felix

[DCP]

Ok

I just got off the phone with A Lyman technical representative that works in the ballistics lab. (If you want his name PM me)

You can load light loads, gallery or cat sneeze loads? If you load correctly and safely.

He fires light loads, gallery or cat sneeze loads in his lab

The math and science says you can’t do any damage the power is just not there.

He said this is an old (wise tale) that won’t go away and he gets 2 or 3 calls a week on this.
He said some manufactures are still promoting this (wise tale) for some reason.

Using 2 grains of 700x. If double or triple charges a 30-06 you will still be ok because it has a 10-grain starting point. (Use good loading practices never double or triple charge)

Never mix powder.
Never fire a weapon with a bore obstruction
Load correctly and safely


He said good powders for light loads, gallery or cat sneeze loads?


700x
Unique
Green Dot
231
Acc 5

On a side note

I told him I was getting a flyer every 3 or 4 rounds.
He said he was getting them also and couldn’t figure out why. It just might be the nature of the beast.

He also said 4th Edition Lyman Cast Bullet Hand book is almost done (He is the one working on it)

It will have load data for all of Lyman’s COMPETITORS MOLDS

[David2011]

Hodgdon's webside has a wealth of information on reduced loads with H4895. It is known for its ability to be downloaded substantially. You HAVE to make sure the bullet will exit the barrel every time. It's not worth the risks to go too light.

I've used Bullseye for light loads in .38 Special since 1980 or so without a problem. I load 2.3 grains behind a 148 gr wadcutter or a 158 grain RN/SWC. It's great practice in small pocket pistols and recoils like a .22 in full size .38/.357s.

David

[BeeMan]

"1. Shooters have chosen a sport where every single time they / you pull the trigger, they are igniting a potentially explosive situation and then they ask, is this dangerous?"

It amazes me how many dismiss this point. We work with molten lead, pressures up to 50KSI, projectiles that penetrate targets and keep going, etc. Knowledge, discernment, and discipline are not optional.

Some (thinking of no-one in particular on this thread) should stick to playing marbles.

BeeMan (Nomex on)

[BrianB]

Hmmm. Maybe that would explain why no one has ever personally had a gun blow up due to light load detonation or has ever met anyone who has had it happen. Glad you thought to call Lyman on that one.

BTW, looking forward to the new Lyman book, I hope they include Lee molds in their data.

BAB



Ok

I just got off the phone with A Lyman technical representative that works in the ballistics lab. (If you want his name PM me)

You can load light loads, gallery or cat sneeze loads? If you load correctly and safely.

He fires light loads, gallery or cat sneeze loads in his lab

The math and science says you can’t do any damage the power is just not there.

He said this is an old wise tale that won’t go away and he gets 2 or 3 calls a week on this.
He said some manufactures are still promoting this wise tale for some reason.

Using 2 grains of 700x. If double or triple charges a 30-06 you will still be ok because it has a 10-grain starting point. (Use good loading practices never double or triple charge)

Never mix powder.
Never fire a weapon with a bore obstruction
Load correctly and safely


He said good powders for light loads, gallery or cat sneeze loads?


700x
Unique
Green Dot
231
Acc 5

On a side note

I told him I was getting a flyer every 3 or 4 rounds.
He said he was getting them also and couldn’t figure out why. It just might be the nature of the beast.

He also said 4th Edition Lyman Cast Bullet Hand book is almost done (He is the one working on it)

It will have load data for all of Lyman’s COMPETITORS MOLDS

[felix]

Brian, now you know someone. ME!!!! ... felix

[wills]

Is it dangerous to load and fire light loads, gallery or cat sneeze loads?

30-06 2-grains 700x 800fps 100 grain bullet
No filler
(or any fast burning power)

Just got of the phone with a lead bullet manufacture said it was extremely dangerous
He said Cowboy action shooters are blowing up guns all the time this way.

He said the powder is exploding not burning because it doesn’t fill the case

None of my case show any signs of excessive pressure

Lyman cast handbook
Starts a 113-grain bullet at 10 grains 700x in a 30-06
Starts a 249 gain bullet a 6 grains 700x in a 38-55

These don’t fill the case either.


So what is he talking about?
http://www.gmdr.com/lever/pistolpowi.htm

http://www.gmdr.com/lever/lowveldata.htm

[Gee_Wizz01]

I have once been able to dislodge a bullet from a 303 Brit case. It stayed in the throat on extraction and jammed the next round. The scary part is what would have happened if the next round had released its bullet back into the case?:!: Well, it didn't and the gun didn't blow up.

However, a more recent incedent has revealed just how dangerous light loads of fast powder can be. I loaded up some squib loads of Bullseye equivalent using a smaller pistol type measure and dutifully keeping the rifle measure empty and only one powder on the bench at a time. Then going back to the rifle powder - filling up the measure with the correct powder, the 'Bullseye' measure having been emptied and the container put away. Well, the first charge went onto the scale and it was way out. A close look revealed 'Bullseye' mixed in with the rifle powder!:!: I know how it got there. I emptied a suspect case of 'Bullseye' into the wrong measure!:holysheep Both powders are the same colour. (Lost quite a bit of powder removing the contamination[smilie=b:).

I would have put the resultant blow-up down to a SEE since it was a reduced load of slower rifle powder with filler.

I had the same thing happen with a 9mm AR15 I loaded a mag fired 5 or 6 rounds and the next pull of the trigger , the hammer didn't drop. I pulled the charging handle and the empty brass fell out of the ejection port. I started to fire again, but I noticed the bolt didn't go into battery, I pulled the charging handle and a full round ejected. I then opened the rifle and removed the bolt and saw a bullet stuck in the barrel throat. I was also using a brass catcher, which occasionally caused jams, so I had gotten complacent about jams. The incident woke me up and now I check the bore anytime something out of the ordinary happens.

I also did the same thing with powder. I have 3 RCBS Uniflows; one set up for pistol, one for large rifle, and the third is set up for 24.5 grs of Varget for my .223 ammo. One day I was set up to reload and checked the charge and found unique mixed in with the Varget. In this case I had finished reloading .45 colts and had left a scale pan full of Unique on the scale and without thinking, I dumped it into the Powder measure full of Varget. There was 80 grs of unique in the pan as I had dumped 10 charges into the pan to double check the measure. This also provided a wake up call. I had followed almost all of the rules; only one can of powder on the bench, only one powder measure on the bench and verify my charge. Now I check the powder scale pan. You gotta pay attention all the time.

G

[mpmarty]

I play around with very light loads just for the fun of it. I had been loading 45acp on my dillon and decided to load just one or two 30/284 cases for my K31. I'd been using five grains of 700X in the 45acp and since the base plates were the same for both ctgs. I dumped the 5gr of 700X into a couple of cases and capped them off with 170gr cast slugs. Took them out and grabbed one of my K31s and decided to see if I could hit a plate rack about fifty yards away with these cat sneeze loads. Yup!!! Blew a half inch hole clean through one of the plates. I will try this again over a chrony soon and see what five grains of 700X does in a 24" barrel. Amazing!:killingpc

[wallenba]

DCP, look at TrailBoss for reduced loads. It's light and bulky and even small charges take up a lot of volume. IMR even posts a reduced load formula for all rifle and pistol cartridges on their website. Look at the bottom of the menu column under 'Load Data' for it. Downside is a normal 1 lb canister only holds 9 oz, due to it's bulk and light weight, and it goes fast when reloading. JUST DON'T COMPRESS IT!!

[nelsonted1]

I got a jacketed bullet out of a 6.5x55 case into the rifling so hard we used a hammer and rod and had to pound! on it to get it out. We couldn't believe a bullet with most of it sticking out into the chamber could be almost welded in. That was stupid me missing the powder.

[nelsonted1]

I was shooting a 38 sp pistol one day in a snowfall. In the process I got three bullets stuck one behind the other in the barrel. We had to take off the barrel and press them out. I used the minimum listed Unique in the Lyman manual and Berry's bullets. I couldn't feel the squib wearing heavy gloves, didn't see the target through the snow swirling or hear a difference in report. That I hope will be my maxed out stupidity of my shooting lifetime.

Don't think an accident can't happen no matter how careful you are. We drive on highways meeting oncoming cars both of us going 60+mph two feet apart and not think a thing of it. Bad things happen.

TED

[DCP]

Thanks wallenba

I may try some later.
With 2 to 6 gr of 700x it goes a very long way

The technician from Lyman also said you have to be very careful with fillers and they have caused a lot of issues.




DCP, look at TrailBoss for reduced loads. It's light and bulky and even small charges take up a lot of volume. IMR even posts a reduced load formula for all rifle and pistol cartridges on their website. Look at the bottom of the menu column under 'Load Data' for it. Downside is a normal 1 lb canister only holds 9 oz, due to it's bulk and light weight, and it goes fast when reloading. JUST DON'T COMPRESS IT!!

[BrianB]

Brian, now you know someone. ME!!!! ... felix

Yikes!!!

You had one blow up due to a light load detonating or sticking a bullet in the barrel? I really don't think the loads we are talking about could possibly generate the pressure needed to blow up a gun. There just isn't enough energy.

Even with a bullet stuck in the barrel, I can't see it happening with loads like this. I've even seen photos of a revolver barrel with five or six bullets jammed in them and it didn't blow. (Obviously, with a revolver, the pressure is easily vented) How that person did that, I'll never know.

Glad you're OK, that must have been spooky at the least.

[35remington]

I don't think fast powder "detonation" and what Felix is talking about are the same thing.

I don't recall him claiming that two grains of Bullseye or similar type event using a very small amount of a very fast powder blew up his gun. Rather, it was a reduced load of rifle speed powder.

Mixing up the two types of events and calling them the same thing does not help clarify the issue. The term SEE has been applied to using small charges of rifle speed powders (a half charge of 4350, 4831, etc) in rifle cases and also to very small charges of fast powders in pistol or rifle cases.

Two very different scenarios. Calling both SEE is probably not describing things correctly.

Norm Johnson's commentaries on the matter, FWIW:

Dear Sir:

I believe that your article warning of the dangers of SEE has inacuracies that will discourage some shooters from safe and satisfactory experimentation.

SEE is an unexplained pressure excursion which has often blown up guns. It is associated with markedly reduced loads of very slow powders.

Contrary to the ubiquitous old wives tale, detonation is NOT a consideration with fast powders such as Bullseye, no matter how light the charge is or how spacious the case.

The phenomena of Secondary Explosion Effect (SEE) is known to occur only with the slow powders at very low loading densities. Precious little is known about the mechanics of the phenomenon and it is not even known if the expression, Secondary Explosion Effect, is accurate. SEE, despite best efforts of the leading powder companies, cannot be reproduced in the lab, at least in the literature that I have been able to find. Some of the powder companies now are putting notations in their manuals not to reduce CERTAIN loads below 80% loading density. One should note that such notations are for a very limited number of powders and cartridges, such as W-W 296 in the .44 Magnum. Actual documented SEE cases were at densities much less than 80% and with slow powders.

Cast bullet shooters discovered SEE while experimenting with some of the very slow powders. However, they have been using moderate speed powders at much reduced loads since the days of Dr. Mann, with no untoward results. Only the very slow powders exhibit SEE, usually those that were developed for the .50 BMG and magnum rifles such as MR-8700, etc. Recent events posted by Charlie Sharps, "Charles J. Sharps Ph.D" indicates that any powder that is SLOW FOR THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION, loaded to a significantly reduced powder density, might be suspect. His was a Hercules 2400, .45-70 Contender blowup.

If SEE were a real danger with other than very slow powders, we would have MANY gun blow-ups. Think about it a minute. The .38 Special case uses only about 20 - 30% of its case volume when loaded with typical target loads. Anyone seen a .38 go high order from a (true) target load? Cast bullet shooters fire millions of rounds each year using VERY low loading densities in most cases.

If that is not enough, the ultra-lite loads have been experimented with for a good many years, where a typical powder charge might be 2-3 grains of Bullseye, 700X, Unique, or any faster pistol powder in a .30-06 or .45-70 case. If SEE were a realizable phenomena for fast powders at greatly reduced loading densities, this would certainly have resulted in many blow-ups. These ultra-lite loads are not isolated uses as the NRA has written them of them over the years, at least as far back as 1967 (NRA Handloaders Guide, Pg. 154). Reloaders, unfortunately, ascribe some anomalies to conditions other than the actual causes. Several other things that can happen to increase pressures:

1. Excessively thick case neck thickness due to reforming procedures or metal flow - causes over-diameter cartridge neck. Jamming the large cartridge neck into a tight chamber neck is a very good recipe for disaster.

2. Build-up of residue in the neck area of the chamber which compounds 1, above. Cast bullet shooters have experienced this from lube build-up.

3. Stretching of case length resulting from both firing and drawing the expander button back thorough the neck during resizing - causes the mouth of the case to jam into the corresponding chamber area and impede bullet release.

4. Significant increase in local ambient temperature over that in which the load was developed. This can have more effect than the unwary may suspect.

5. Changing to another lot or manufacturer of brass that has a smaller internal volume. This is usually a hazard only if maximum loads for the gun were developed using larger internal volume brass.

6. Bullet seated to a greater overall length (OAL) so that bullet is forced into rifling when the action is closed. This is, of itself, not a hazard; many of my cartridges are prepared using this technique. However, if the load was developed with the bullet seated to normal factory load OAL, that same powder charge can be excessive when the bullet is seated so that it touches the lands.

7. A change of bullet ogive so that the effect of 6 is realized even though cartridge OAL remains the same. I have found at least two boxes of .22 caliber bullets that had noticeably different ogives in the same box.

8. Change to another lot of powder that is faster albeit of the same manufacturer and type.

9. Excessive headspace (or too short cartridges) which can result in head separation and allow hot gasses and molten metal to blow back in the shooter's face. This is not necessarily a pressure excursion, but that is often blamed as the problem.

10. Excessive powder charge. Reloaders are usually not willing to admit this possibility, but we all make mistakes. About 100 years ago, on the second box of .38 Specials that I ever loaded, the charges were so excessive that the web my poor wife's hand was split open. The gun held together and so has our marriage (five kids).

Of these causes, I have found numbers 3 and 10 to be the most common cause of pressure excursions.

SEE is a very real phenomena, but it is blamed many times when the shooter has, in fact, allowed one or more of the above conditions to occur. For those who care to investigate further, back issues of The Cast Bullet have a number of articles discussing same. Handloader has also treated the subject a few times.

SEE is a real phenomena, but, I suspect, not as prevalent as rumors would indicate.

Norm

[Bass Ackward]

SEE is a very real phenomena, but it is blamed many times when the shooter has, in fact, allowed one or more of the above conditions to occur. For those who care to investigate further, back issues of The Cast Bullet have a number of articles discussing same. Handloader has also treated the subject a few times.

SEE is a real phenomena, but, I suspect, not as prevalent as rumors would indicate.

Norm


Norm is right on .............. for many that are qualified to identify those situations. And that is what people miss.

How many people know enough or follow good reloading discipline to avoid situations that increase the risk? Oh it's just a pipsqueak charge. Yep, but it is still you pulling the trigger on what "CAN BE" an explosive situation. I call this the "22 Syndrome". Ever wonder just how many accidents it took before they put that Dangerous to one mile " warning on every box of 22s? Ever see that on a new box of 06s? :grin: There are real knowledgeable gun men that I would NOT trust with a simple 22LR. Why? No respect.

And developing and firing a few Cat Sneeze, before familiarity breeds contempt or over confidence sets in, successfully and then surviving that to move back up into normal operating ranges doesn't qualify one for a Merritt badge or an honorary degree..

In the end, it just .... doesn't ..... matter. People are going to do what they want to do even if you guaranteed them failure. They are going to ask and ask and ask until they get the answer they demand.

And THERE is the HUMOR. Dad tells you one thing so you go ask mom hoping for something else. :grin: I knew it was going to happen, just had to wait long enough to see it in posts.

That's why it doesn't matter. And the odds are that you will survive one way or another. Accidents can happen anywhere in the load density chain but it seems people pay more attention (respect)as the levels go up for some reason. This is probably the BIGGEST factor to accidents at any level.

Handle any situation with the respect it deserves, and you will "probably" be OK. Cause you are going to do it anyway. If you have an accident, you will know why it is called an accident. This is the shooting sports.

Bet you have heard the proper tool for the proper job line before huh? Can't shoot cheaper than a 22. :grin:

[DCP]

Norm is right on .............. for many that are qualified to identify those situations. And that is what people miss.

How many people know enough or follow good reloading discipline to avoid situations that increase the risk? Oh it's just a pipsqueak charge. Yep, but it is still you pulling the trigger on what "CAN BE" an explosive situation. I call this the "22 Syndrome". Ever wonder just how many accidents it took before they put that Dangerous to one mile " warning on every box of 22s? Ever see that on a new box of 06s? :grin: There are real knowledgeable gun men that I would NOT trust with a simple 22LR. Why? No respect.

And developing and firing a few Cat Sneeze, before familiarity breeds contempt or over confidence sets in, successfully and then surviving that to move back up into normal operating ranges doesn't qualify one for a Merritt badge or an honorary degree..
In the end, it just .... doesn't ..... matter. People are going to do what they want to do even if you guaranteed them failure. They are going to ask and ask and ask until they get the answer they demand.

And THERE is the HUMOR. Dad tells you one thing so you go ask mom hoping for something else. :grin: I knew it was going to happen, just had to wait long enough to see it in posts.

That's why it doesn't matter. And the odds are that you will survive one way or another. Accidents can happen anywhere in the load density chain but it seems people pay more attention (respect)as the levels go up for some reason. This is probably the BIGGEST factor to accidents at any level.

Handle any situation with the respect it deserves, and you will "probably" be OK. Cause you are going to do it anyway. If you have an accident, you will know why it is called an accident. This is the shooting sports.

Bet you have heard the proper tool for the proper job line before huh? Can't shoot cheaper than a 22. :grin:

WOW
I thought this site was here in part to get help, to learn and to pass on ones knowledge and not get hurt.
All I did is ask a question and then end up with this kind of attack. You don't even know me.

Also these lite loads have their place your statement about proper tool is sad. They have been shooting them since the 1920s or earlier.

I would truly hope your feelings are in the minority or I am in the wrong place.

[Bass Ackward]

I thought this site was here in part to get help so not to get hurt, learn and to pass on ones knowledge

I would truely hope your feelings are in the minority or I am in the wrong place


The others just told you how to put your neck in the noose. I told you to do it safely. You need both.

Your response just supports my claim.

[wiljen]

Alright, I don't want to see this turn into a pissing contest and it seems headed that way. As long as we have more than 2 members, we will have more than two opinions. Let's try to keep this as civil as possible though.

For what it is worth, I don't think Bass is intentionally being snide, I do think he is playing devil's advocate and anytime you ask a question on a controversial issue, you are likely to get this.

For me truth is this.

1.) SEE Happens, it is real. I have seen it personally with a charge I know was reduced of 4350.

How do I know this?

1.) I saw the case loaded and saw the powder poured in the hopper so I know it was the correct powder.

2.) This was a situation where a double charge would not fit and a case full would have been a safe maximum.

3.) It was the first shot from a cleaned gun that myself and the shooter had inspected so I know the bore wasn't obstructed.

4.) I heard the click/boom.

5.) After replacing the extractor and ejector that it broke, he tried it a 2nd time with the same result.

Does this mean all reduced loads are dangerous? No, it means that in this situation, using those components, they can be.

Like all things in reloading, there are too many factors to answer the question with a blanket yes or no. If all else is right, light loads can be effective practice and plinking loads. If any of a number of other factors are incorrect, results can be disastrous to both gun and shooter.

As such, only a fool would tell you "Sure, go ahead and do it, there is no potential safety issue involved". A more realistic answer is "Many people have been able to do this successfully by either being extremely careful and limiting the other factors that when combined with light loads can cause problems or by simply being lucky and not running into a situation where things went wrong YET."

I know my luck and the law of averages, just because I have tempted fate 99 times doesn't mean something cant go wrong the 100th. Your luck may be better than mine, but wouldn't you rather improve your odds by eliminating every other factor that could lend itself to the creation of a problem?

Wiljen

[lwknight]

A reduced load and a cat sneeze are not the same thing.
2 or 3 grains of bullseye wont even blow your nose , let alone a gun.
Using 30 grains of 4350 when you should have used 55 grains is insanity.

So half a load of meduim or slow powder can be hazardous.
A small load of faster powder is just fine.

So wilijen what exact load and caliber did you witness the SEE take place?

[wiljen]

I could not disagree more with the statement that 3gr of BE will not blow your nose. 3gr of BE is enough to propel a .380 ACP load to almost 800fps or a .32 ACP load to better than 1000fps and enough that if loaded in a .25 acp with a standard hardball bullet it would produce over 100,000 PSI. While not large rounds, underestimating the capability of a powder like that seems like a potentially catastrophic mistake.


The cartridge was a .256 Newton loaded with 85gr Sierra jacketed bullets.
Been enough years that I may be off, but if memory serves, it was 38gr of IMR 4350 using Winchester primers.

[DCP]

HOW TO HANDLOAD SUBSONIC RIFLE CARTRIDGES
(and survive)

Part One: Remembrance and Grey Theory

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/arcane1.html

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/arcane2.html


Taken from
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/arcane2.html

When the first part of story Arcane was still under creation process, one fellow-gunwriter made some test-shooting with "Kissan aivastus" (id est: "Cat's Sneeze") loads. He has not 7.62 mm Mosin-Nagant rifle or carbine, but a Mauser model 98 k, re-barreled for the .308 Win. a.k.a. 7.62 mm NATO cartridges. He had resized and re-primed LAPUA cases with REMINGTON 9 ½ Large Rifle Standard primers. He made his substitute No.1 Buck-sized spherical bullets from spent .22 LR solid bullets, weight 40 grains. This is THE way to get No.1 buckshots in Finland. He sealed those lead pills into the case necks with a small dose of vaseline (mineral jelly). Despite of his home-made bullets, and lack of optical sight, the accuracy of shooting was very satisfactory to ten meters, but less than fair to 30 meters range, just as the accuracy of "primer-only" loads was ca.70 years ago.

This old discovery seems to be functioning! When the friend of the author shall get factory-made buckshots, he'll try shooting with more efficient primers (FEDERAL 215) and the "booster charge" of powder, VIHTAVUORI N 310 or HODGDON HP-38, also chronographing bullet velocities. Interesting notice was that resized cases didn't leak gasses back. The soft vaseline sealed an outer wall of the case neck too ! This is a very important notice for those riflemen, having not the cases previously shot with their own rifle, but just salvaged brass with live primers, or cases picked up from a shooting range, resized down to the factory-made cartridge's dimensions, and reprimed.


Still some hints from the history

Who was the inventor of Cat's Sneeze ? > The author is innocent, but one Mr. VELI NIEMINEN, then a Secretary of the Finnish Shooters' Association, is the most suspected. In his "Handbook For The Shooter", published in 1926, he was not yet mentioned use of bore-sized lead pill as a projectile for gallery-load of 7.62 mm military rifles, because Mr. Nieminen was a "zealot", who insisted on adoption of the 7 x 57 mm Mauser as a military rifle and machine gun caliber in Finland. But he was an enthusiastic researcher of match-grade rifle loads and special loads, until his death in 1936. In his handbook told Nieminen many stories of "schuetzen shooting" with cast lead bullets, loaded into cases almost without tools or dies - except those needed for decapping and re-primi

[Larry Gibson]

The cartridge was a .256 Newton loaded with 85gr Sierra jacketed bullets.
Been enough years that I may be off, but if memory serves, it was 38gr of IMR 4350 using Winchester primers.

Classic conditions for an SEE; overbore cartridge, light for caliber jacketed bullet with probable long jump to leade and reduced load of slow burning powder.

Those conditions are present in many SEE incident that I am aware of. There are some other conditions such as a rough throat, etc. but the ones named are the most prevailent. Their ar other causes of catastrophic explosians such as double or triple charges but as for SEE the tree mentioned are the most prevailent conditions.

Larry Gibson

[DCP]

History will repeat itself if we forget it

If you read these 2 article you should now understand why these loads are important

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/arcane1.html
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/arcane2.html

I will teach my children and grandchildren, the light loads, cat sneeze and gallery loads, as they or we may need it someday.

When or if they take our guns or lead or powder will you or yours be ready.

Always be vigilant Always be ready


Always have the correct tool for the job.


Vaya con Dios

[wiljen]

Classic conditions for an SEE; overbore cartridge, light for caliber jacketed bullet with probable long jump to leade and reduced load of slow burning powder.

Those conditions are present in many SEE incident that I am aware of. There are some other conditions such as a rough throat, etc. but the ones named are the most prevailent. Their ar other causes of catastrophic explosians such as double or triple charges but as for SEE the tree mentioned are the most prevailent conditions.

Larry Gibson


Couldn't agree more Larry. I have just heard it argued that there is no such thing as SEE in small arms and I might have believed that too, had I not seen it firsthand and seen it twice.

Wiljen

[Larry Gibson]

SEE is a fact and there is no doubt about it. I have posted several times the article in Handloader where it was replicated in a major ballistics lab of a munitions manufacturer. I have ruined one rifle myself with an SEE. It is fairly easy to do and happens quite regularly. I don't understand either why some seemingly don't understand. Glad you kept all your fingers and eyes.

Larry Gibson

[lwknight]

I will stick to the guns on thaqt a 30-06 with 2 or 3 grains bullseye cannot get enough pressure to do much of anything but fart.
There is simply not enough burnable material there.

Like stated earlier that the conditions were nothing like the popcorn loads that we were talking about in the beginning.
4350 is a high pressure rifle powder and has little in common with the faster pistol and shotgun powders.

Sure you can overload your 380 with BE but you cannot underload it till you get it so that it will not even launch the bullet out of the barrel.

I use 2.0 grains BE in 38 spl with 100 grain WCs and they are a hoot to shoot at 400 fps and the primer obviously has no back pressure cause the firing pin caves in the whole botton of the primer.

[DCP]

I will stick to the guns on thaqt a 30-06 with 2 or 3 grains bullseye cannot get enough pressure to do much of anything but fart.
There is simply not enough burnable material there.


I hope Larry and you are talking about 2 different things

SEE does happen but not with fast powders and lead.

These are totally different and just confusing people

Its kind of hijacking this thread

I want to find out about Light loads, Gallery loads and light loads(with fast powder and lead) never did want to use jacketed and slow powder

Please read these

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/arcane1.html
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/arcane2.html

[35remington]

In reference to light (2 to 3 grain) powder charges of Bullseye, et. al and rifle cartridges:

How come you never hear of a rifle being blown up with a super light charge of fast powder? Why is it just pistols, and why when we hear of "fast powder detonation" that a revolver is shown with the top blown off and never a rifle?

Aren't the conditions supposedly ideal for a "detonation" even more likely in a rifle case? That is, a large case volume and a powder charge that only partially fills the case?

There's more room for 3 grains Bullseye to wander around in a '06 case, far more so than a couple of grains of Bullseye in a 38 Special load.

Could it be that a double, triple, quadruple or quintuple charge of fast powder is quite safe in a rifle because the pressures are so very low, and not so in a pistol?

A multiple charge in a voluminous rifle case is still a light load.

Not so in a pistol.

This would seem to go a long way toward explaning why we never see a picture of how 3 grains of Bullseye blew up an '06 Remington 700 but supposedly "detonated" in a revolver.

For the record, I have no questions about the inadvisability of dramatically reducing charges of slow rifle powders, nor any concerning Felix's assertions. I believe him.

But that's not the issue at question here.....fast powders in light charges is the topic.

BTW, it's rather amusing to hear any of the Finns suggest one of their countrymen invented "cat sneeze" loads! There were likely handloaders of every nationality that were using them at the same time or long before the Finnish did!

Sorry VELI! No dice!

[lwknight]

I want to find out about Light loads, Gallery loads and light loads(with fast powder and lead) never did want to use jacketed and slow powder

Repeat:
I use 2.0 grains BE in 38 spl with 100 grain WCs and they are a hoot to shoot at 400 fps and the primer obviously has no back pressure cause the firing pin caves in the whole botton of the primer.

Is that gallery load enough?

I think I will try to launch a soft lead 250 grain boolit from my 38-55 with 2 grains BE in the morning.
If you never hear from me again , you will know why. LOL
I bet it sticks in the barrel.

[Larry Gibson]

DCP

You are correct, SEE doesn't happen with the faster burning powders. The theory proffered with those is "wave detonation". WD has not been replicated or proven. What has been proven with them is double, tripple of really gross overloads. Frankly, any one who has read my posts regarding such know that I am a great fan of Bullseye for light or "cat's sneeze" loads. I often recommend 2.7 - 3.2 gr of bulleseye under the Lee TL314-90-SWC or the Hornady 90 gr swaged Lead SWC in 30/31 caliber cartridges with capacity of the 7.62x39 up through the 30-06. With such loads a double or even a tripple charge, depending on the case, is not over pressure but sure will lead the barrel (not conjecture as I have tested those loads). I also, quite frequently recommend 5 - 8 gr of Bullseye under PB'd or GC'd (sans the GC) cast bullets of medium weight for the mentioned cartridges giving velocites up through 1150 or 1200 fps.

As mentioned though, shooting is dangerous. To mitigate (we never completely get rid of the danger) we use good firearms in good conditions, good ammuntion or loads that are carefully worked up and use safe handling of firearms. That is not to say that at sometimes something may go wrong. Another reason to always wear safety lens galsses when shooting. So is it"safe" to use such loads? If due process and caution are excercised; yes it is. However, it is easy, very easy, to make a mistake with such loads so extra caution is the way. Not much sense arguing over it. If you don't think it can safely be done then by all means don't do it. However, some if not many of us have confidence in our ability and do do it.

Larry Gibson

[DCP]

Repeat:



I think I will try to launch a soft lead 250 grain boolit from my 38-55 with 2 grains BE in the morning.
If you never hear from me again , you will know why. LOL
I bet it sticks in the barrel.


I have tried 6 grains 700x, 250 grain- 884 fps 854 fps 852fps 856 fps in 38-55
I have tried 2 grains 700x with a round ball and it works

2 grains with a 250 grain may not make it out the barrel (Just have a brass rod ready)

2 grains in a 30-06 works real good but in 303 the brass is real dirty (round ball or 100 grain boolit)

[357maximum]

I bet it sticks in the barrel.

I will take that bet. I have 700 once fired loob grooves that say it will in fact.

[Bass Ackward]

Seems that the emails are against my discussion here with dcp. This comes down to safety for me, so how do you argue gun safety?

What an adult does with a gun is one thing. He understands what he is getting into. Often cat sneeze isn't about him, but young ones where my safety standards are much higher. They don't understand click bank or poof. Cat sneeze loads for kids or bystanders are different.

From the three guns I have seen blown or the results thereof, the shooter suffers minor injuries. Usually to the non firing arm / hand. So be it, he pulled the trigger, took the risk.

The damage zone from these blasts was laterally. That means the guy on the bench next to you, the kid looking over the side of the bench watching daddy, etc. These people don't deserve punishment for a tour of duty they didn't sign up for.

And maybe I am a tad sensitive here. I advised a father three months ago against getting his son a 4wheeler for his 14th birthday. Dad swore up and down he was going to supervise. I knew he would. Problem was that his son wasn't like dad and I didn't state that. Dad got to supervise the death of his son, the funeral just three weeks ago.

Now dad has mental and marital problems. All from something that seemed so harmless. Sort of like a Cat Sneeze load.

[felix]

Larry, "The theory proffered with those is "wave detonation". WD has not been replicated or proven." This is in error. See Precision Shooting, about 10 years ago. A wife of a BR shooter was killed when a loaded cartridge (6 PPC with first issue H322) was ram rodded back out of the chamber because of a too tight of a neck. I charge 250 bucks per hour to find and print the article here. ... felix

[DCP]

Seems that the emails are against my discussion here with dcp. This comes down to safety for me, so how do you argue gun safety?

What an adult does with a gun is one thing. He understands what he is getting into. Often cat sneeze isn't about him, but young ones where my safety standards are much higher. They don't understand click bank or poof. Cat sneeze loads for kids or bystanders are different.

From the three guns I have seen blown or the results thereof, the shooter suffers minor injuries. Usually to the non firing arm / hand. So be it, he pulled the trigger, took the risk.

The damage zone from these blasts was laterally. That means the guy on the bench next to you, the kid looking over the side of the bench watching daddy, etc. These people don't deserve punishment for a tour of duty they didn't sign up for.

And maybe I am a tad sensitive here. I advised a father three months ago against getting his son a 4wheeler for his 14th birthday. Dad swore up and down he was going to supervise. I knew he would. Problem was that his son wasn't like dad and I didn't state that. Dad got to supervise the death of his son, the funeral just three weeks ago.

Now dad has mental and marital problems. All from something that seemed so harmless. Sort of like a Cat Sneeze load.


Your reply to these threads is truly amazing

Of course Safety is the number 1

Anyone that would put children in danger or at risk should be put in jail. (Which I have by the way put them in jail)

But with your reasoning

No should play baseball, football or any sport because some child has died or gotten hurt.
Never ride motorcycle; never fly a plane, never swim or scuba dive for the same reason

How and why are you even in this sport with your fears of life?

How can you even reload or shoot because YOU could make a mistake and the person or persons next to you could get killed or hurt.

Nearly 90 years of these kinds of loads. So do the MATH!! If you do it right it can’t hurt you or the gun. That’s the way every thing in life works. Do it right or pay the consequences
OR

Is it you just want to argue?

Regardless this is my last reply to you.
You will not change or admit you could be wrong.
You Just tell me I could hurt a child (Shame on you)


Vaya con Dios

[BrianB]

Wow, now we have 2 grain loads that are going to kill and maim innocent bystanders.



Seems that the emails are against my discussion here with dcp. This comes down to safety for me, so how do you argue gun safety?

What an adult does with a gun is one thing. He understands what he is getting into. Often cat sneeze isn't about him, but young ones where my safety standards are much higher. They don't understand click bank or poof. Cat sneeze loads for kids or bystanders are different.

From the three guns I have seen blown or the results thereof, the shooter suffers minor injuries. Usually to the non firing arm / hand. So be it, he pulled the trigger, took the risk.

The damage zone from these blasts was laterally. That means the guy on the bench next to you, the kid looking over the side of the bench watching daddy, etc. These people don't deserve punishment for a tour of duty they didn't sign up for.

And maybe I am a tad sensitive here. I advised a father three months ago against getting his son a 4wheeler for his 14th birthday. Dad swore up and down he was going to supervise. I knew he would. Problem was that his son wasn't like dad and I didn't state that. Dad got to supervise the death of his son, the funeral just three weeks ago.

Now dad has mental and marital problems. All from something that seemed so harmless. Sort of like a Cat Sneeze load.

[Larry Gibson]

felix

"The theory proffered with those is "wave detonation". WD has not been replicated or proven." This is in error. See Precision Shooting, about 10 years ago. A wife of a BR shooter was killed when a loaded cartridge (6 PPC with first issue H322) was ram rodded back out of the chamber because of a too tight of a neck. I charge 250 bucks per hour to find and print the article here. ... felix

I've not read the article but from other posts on it there was a rod down the barrel when the round went off(?). I'm not sure how a bore obstruction (i.e. the rod down the bore) "replicates" or "proves" the wave detonation theory. Could you explain how it does? I also don't understand what a high density load of 322 has to do with "wave" detonation(?).

Larry Gibson

[felix]

Larry, the banging/tapping of the rod against the stuck round set up the vibration waves. The bolt was out of the gun, and the wife was standing behind the gun, and holding it, while the gun was on the bags. The case dug out of her by the emergency room doc(s) had its primer intact. The H322 lot was a nervous one to begin with. Prolly why it was the preferred lot of all time for the 6 PPC in a bench gun: easiest to ignite, therefore most consistent?? ... felix

[Larry Gibson]

Felix

I think that is really a stretch on the "wave detonation" theory. Intact primer does not mean it did not go off and fire the powder. I would have to see a detailed forensics report on that primer before bying off on the 322 being set of by the tapping on the rod. Not doubting you Felix, just doubting the lack of facts.

Larry Gibson

[felix]

Primer was perfect, before and after the accident. Unless the writeup was in error, those are the facts as stated. But, is it the truth? Facts, yes; truth, maybe not. If you don't think wave mechanics, then this whole conversation with, or without, the magazine supporting this issue, is for naught. ... felix

[Bass Ackward]

I am constantly amazed by what is "THOUGHT " to be written vs what actually appears. One of these days, someone is going to use advice that they read here. Or advice that they "THINK" or interpret that they read here that produces terrible results. Then the cry is going to be for some body's head.

2 grains? Sounds like a joke huh? And now we are arguing terms. So lets see what we were taught.

The subject here is Cat Sneeze loads. These loads are defined as loads that have no real definition other than they are below "minimum safe" published data loads.

Cast rifle loads are a very small percentage of cast loads in general which are dominated by handguns.

Cat sneeze loads are a minuscule percentage of cast rifle loads. You might say that Cat Sneeze loads are the least of the least! So the data is sketchy at best.

Just because a powder is listed at a burn rate that indicates that it is a fast burning powder, doesn't mean that it burns uniformly at all pressure levels or even safely under all conditions or pressure levels. That is why no two burn rate charts are the same.

Just because somebody uses two grains of something in a 223 case successfully, doesn't mean that it is safer in a 30-06 or safer in a 30-378 just because case volume is larger.

The only history with Cat Sneeze loads are from those who tried and survived. And those who have blown firearms. The only real experience that you can count on with cat sneeze loads is yours, " IF " you make the conscious decision to develop it. That will be it's history. "Your" load .... in "THAT" gun at the angles and conditions you test it. That is safe reloading 101.

[BrianB]

So far, everything I have heard from you is what you "think" or interpret. Nothing you have preached is backed up by collective common sense, physics, or the comapanies that produce propellants. The reality is that no decent condition, modern firearm has ever blown up from the loads in discussion here. No children have been killed or maimed nor has there been any other collateral damage. I'm sorry if I seem terse or short, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this entire line of thinking is just impossible.


I am constantly amazed by what is "THOUGHT " to be written vs what actually appears. One of these days, someone is going to use advice that they read here. Or advice that they "THINK" or interpret that they read here that produces terrible results. Then the cry is going to be for some body's head.

2 grains? Sounds like a joke huh? And now we are arguing terms. So lets see what we were taught.

The subject here is Cat Sneeze loads. These loads are defined as loads that have no real definition other than they are below "minimum safe" published data loads.

Cast rifle loads are a very small percentage of cast loads in general which are dominated by handguns.

Cat sneeze loads are a minuscule percentage of cast rifle loads. You might say that Cat Sneeze loads are the least of the least! So the data is sketchy at best.

Just because a powder is listed at a burn rate that indicates that it is a fast burning powder, doesn't mean that it burns uniformly at all pressure levels or even safely under all conditions or pressure levels. That is why no two burn rate charts are the same.

Just because somebody uses two grains of something in a 223 case successfully, doesn't mean that it is safer in a 30-06 or safer in a 30-378 just because case volume is larger.

The only history with Cat Sneeze loads are from those who tried and survived. And those who have blown firearms. The only real experience that you can count on with cat sneeze loads is yours, " IF " you make the conscious decision to develop it. That will be it's history. "Your" load .... in "THAT" gun at the angles and conditions you test it. That is safe reloading 101.

[Larry Gibson]

Primer was perfect, before and after the accident. Unless the writeup was in error, those are the facts as stated. But, is it the truth? Facts, yes; truth, maybe not. If you don't think wave mechanics, then this whole conversation with, or without, the magazine supporting this issue, is for naught. ... felix

Nope, not saying for "naught" at all. Just saying that the mechanics of that incident do not fit the description of "wave detonation" as it it pertains to small quanities of fast buring powders in large cases. That's all I'm saying. That incident follows perhaps more of an "impact detonation theory"(?).

Larry Gibson

[DCP]

Brain

Just look here it is already a classic. It is called a Favorite reduced load
But if walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck or its a CSL,GL or RL.[smilie=b:

I sure hope they all are using fast powders

GO SEE :bigsmyl2:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=17536



So far, everything I have heard from you is what you "think" or interpret. Nothing you have preached is backed up by collective common sense, physics, or the comapanies that produce propellants. The reality is that no decent condition, modern firearm has ever blown up from the loads in discussion here. No children have been killed or maimed nor has there been any other collateral damage. I'm sorry if I seem terse or short, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this entire line of thinking is just impossible.

[barrabruce]

Haven't read all the five pages of replies but.
Has anyone heard of this theory which seems feasible to me.

A bad primer. Oil on in contaminated dud etc is ignited and smoulders. causing the powder to not full ignite properly but produce a gas or smoke that finally gains enough heat etc to ingite.
The now gas form of gunpowder would have a very high burn rate causing a very high pressure instead of a controlled burn much more than say bulleye or such in a powder form with coatings on it.

Something like that anyway.

I read it somewhere and it was explained in a more logical errhhh techincal than that which souded good anyways.

One more wives tale maybe???

Maybe why it would be hard to duplicate.

Anyone wanna try the theory out???

I don't but I do look after my primers more carefully since reading it.

Barra

[felix]

Yes, Larry, impact detonation would be fine. It's all pertaining to OUR definition of a SEE, no matter how initiated, as an uncontrolled burn/explosion/detonation/electron movement/whatever. ... felix

[Larry Gibson]

Yes, Larry, impact detonation would be fine. It's all pertaining to OUR definition of a SEE, no matter how initiated, as an uncontrolled burn/explosion/detonation/electron movement/whatever. ... felix

I don't particularly disagree except with the bolt out of the rifle and pounding on the bullet with a rod may not have caused an over pressure detonation. The powder simple could have ignited and burned normaly but without the bolt being there to containing it went terribly wrong. A slam fire probably is in the same category. I also don't believe a doublt, tripple or gross over load is consider an SEE. In an SEE a specific series of events causes a stuck bullet to become a bore obtruction with the resultant destruction of the firearm. A matter of how one decides to view the subject; from a general point of view or from one of technical correctness. I don't suppose either is incorrect.

Larry Gibson

[felix]

Yes, Larry, an overload cannot be considered a SEE situation. Wave mechanics defintely would be considered as such, no matter how or why the energy of the wave got transferred to the object in question. Keep in mind the Memorex tape ad with Ella and her voice. Also, the movie The War of the Worlds doing the same thing. ... felix

[azcruiser]

Think the key with light loads is to use a powder that is bulky and takes up a lot of the case.
two reasons first it/s easy to see that the case is not empty and near impossible to double charge as it will spill out.The second reason is powder placement in the case some of these[[ LIGHT]]
loads run into a problem because the powder tends to lay away from the primer or in some case's say shooting downward up against the bullet poor primer detonation can't think of the word for it . But what happens is the powder lights and doesn't have the force needed and them the pressure has to go some were boom. I use TRAILBOSS because it take up the most room in the cases I shoot

[lwknight]

Think the key with light loads is to use a powder that is bulky and takes up a lot of the case.
Thats why we use fillers on top of the powder.

[DCP]

I talked to Lyman technical representative that works in the ballistics lab. (If you want his name PM me)

You can load light loads, gallery or cat sneeze loads? If you load correctly and safely.

He fires light loads, gallery or cat sneeze loads in his lab

The math and science says you can’t do any damage the power is just not there.

He said this is an old (wise tale) that won’t go away and he gets 2 or 3 calls a week on this.
He said some manufactures are still promoting this (wise tale) for some reason.

Using 2 grains of 700x. If double or triple charges a 30-06 you will still be ok because it has a 10-grain starting point. (Use good loading practices never double or triple charge)

Never mix powder.
Never fire a weapon with a bore obstruction
Load correctly and safely

With 2 to 6 gr of 700x it goes a very long way

The technician from Lyman also said you have to be very careful with fillers and they can cause many problems. He does not recommended the use of fillers

He said good powders for light loads, gallery or cat sneeze loads? These are all fast powders

700x
Unique
Green Dot
231
Acc 5

[Duckhunter]

Years ago I failed to charge a 6mm Rem case. I was on the range when i shot the cartridge and it did push the bullet about 3" into the barrel. The small pop and lack of recoil (plus no hole in the target) caused me to examine my bore. I pushed the bullet back out from the muzzle end and I remember being amazed that it did not take any more effort than it did. Back them I used CCI standard primers exclusively so I know that on at least one occasion, a standard primer pushed an 85 gr Sierra boat tail bullet into the bore.

I know that this is a small caliber with a short bearing surface but it has happened. Sometimes all the stars align and bad things do happen. Be careful and pay attention.

[Milanodan]

Using 2 grains of 700x.

With 2 to 6 gr of 700x it goes a very long way

The technician from Lyman also said you have to be very careful with fillers and they can cause many problems. He does not recommended the use of fillers

He said good powders for light loads, gallery or cat sneeze loads? These are all fast powders

700x
Unique
Green Dot
231
Acc 5

Just fired some super light-load cast Boolits from my 18.5" barreled Rem. 760 30/06.

All using 700X, no filler, 115 gr Boolits.

3.5 gr., 835 FPS, 178 ft. lb.
4.0 gr., 1001/256
4.5 gr., 1050/281
9.5 gr., 1587/643

[Char-Gar]

Oh well..I am not a science type and can't answer any of the why and how questions. But here is what I know about the "what".

1. There is such a thing as SEE. It has been observed, studied and taught among artillery folks for generations.

3. While quite rare in small arms, it does happen with reduced charges of slow powder.

4. More firearms that go kaboom do so as as the result of a powder overload, whether the loader/shooter thinks so or not.

5. A stuck bullet in a barrel won't cause the rifle to come apart if a full snort round is fired behind it. General Hatcher did some experiments ( 03 Springfields ) while at Frankford Arsenal, with stuck bullets and full snort round fired behind them. You might get a bulged barrel out of the deal.

The above speaks to the "what", you guys can wax eloquent, argue and bicker about the "why". I learned along time ago, not to advance my ignorant opinions as facts. That doesn't mean I don't have opinions as in I do. Sometimes I have two or more contridictory opinions on the same subject. Opinions are like..oh, well..and so it goes.

[turbo1889]

Okay, I didn't read the whole thread; read the first two pages and then the last few posts. So forgive me if I might have missed something; I don't usually post on a thread if I haven’t read everything that came before. The reason I am doing so know is because I have some first hand knowledge to add to this discussion, which is:

I have "killed" a Turk. LRMTFSRB 8x57J with a reduced cast boolit load.

The particular rifle in question had a bore diameter that slugged at 0.320" which is too big for 0.318" nominal "J" series 8x57 bullets and too small for 0.323" WWII and beyond series 8x57 bullets. I had obtained a partial box of jacketed bullets of 0.321" diameter from a buddy since he had nothing that they fit and I thought they might work real good for this particular gun.

Anyway long story short I took my portable loading stuff including a bottle of R-15 powder, the gun, and the bullets in question up to my grandfather’s place intending to develop a load for the gun using the bullets in question. I did indeed work up such a load and it worked just fine. The stickler comes in where my grandfather had some plain base cast boolits that he had originally purchased for use in a 32 Winchester Special that he no longer owned and he ended up giving me those as well. At this point I should mention that the bottle of R-15 was the only powder I had brought with me. I should have stopped while I was ahead and called it a day - I didn't and I loaded a single test round using a weighed charge that was half of what I had used for the jacketed bullets a load which was not a full case fill load to begin with. I know I did no double charge the shell, I know it was a weighed charge, and I only loaded one shell.

Long story short, when I pulled the trigger on that test load there was a slight but noticeable delay before the gun went bang - sort of like what one experiences with a percussion cap side lock muzzle loader. Not near as long as the delay on a flint lock muzzle loader but a noticeable delay. The gun kicked like hell and after the shot a very thick, very stinky smoke came out around the bolt and the bolt would not open even when we took a hammer to it. We beat on it with the hammer trying to open the bolt so hard the action started to come loose in the stock. It finally took a pipe over the straight bolt used as a cheater bar about six foot long with one of us yanking on the pipe and the other smacking with the hammer to finally get her open (We pretty much know the gun was killed by then so we weren't too worried about being gentle).

Complete head separation and ballooning of the case with the forward section jammed into the chamber so tight we didn't even try to get it out and there was visible metal damage to both front lugs of the bolt and the rear of the guns chamber appeared to be slightly bulged to match the bulge on the back side half of the case that came out with the bolt. All I can say is that I'm really glad those guns have the rear safety lug on the bolt and are built like a tank since I was the knuckle head who touched off that stupid round with his stupid head less then a foot away.

Whether the same thing is possible with faster burning powders I do not know, but you won't catch me using anything less then about 3/4 case fill with slow burning rifle powders - in fact I pretty much stick to full case compressed loads in rifle cartridges for both jacketed and cast boolits and just choose a slower powder to reduce the pressure for cast rather then using a charge with reduced case fill. I ain’t ever going to put together anything even close to that reload ever again.

Edit: OKay, finished reading the complete thread. Big rifle cases with charges of slow burning rifle powders that leave a big air bubble inside the case but still have enough powder inside them to provide enough boom to do damage are indeed dangerous as I have first hand knowledge of. Either eliminate the air bubble by filling the case or use a much smaller amount of powder that burns so fast you aren’t going to get a secondary detonation (if that is the theory one subscribes too) and/or the charge level is so light that their isn't enough energy in the charge to do any damage (to the gun) anyway. The same thing may also be true for large magnum revolver cartridges and a few large semi-auto pistol cartridges (45-AutoMag, 50-AE, 10mm, etc. . . ?) where there also exists the possibility of getting both a big enough air bubble and enough of the right (wrong?) powder in the case to cause the same problem. This would explain some of the revolvers that have had the top blown off them. Anyone care to attempt to validate this secondary theory by attempting to deliberately blowing up a gun? If the theory holds a 44-mag loaded with a 70% charge of H110 should probably do the trick. After my own experience with this problem in rifle cartridges I'm not game to test it myself even if I have a bunch of old tires, sand-bags, a concrete wall, a long string, and an old beat up 44-mag to throw away.

[felix]

Can we say an up-close and personified SEE condition had occured? Absolutely, no questions warranted. ... felix

[turbo1889]

Yes, indeed, Mr. Felix ~ but at the same time I don't want folks to get the wrong idea and not realize that very, very light loads using very small charges can indeed be done and done safely.

SO LONG AS YOU USE THE RIGHT POWDER FOR THE JOB.

I, myself, use an extremely light load for my 380-Auto pocket pistol that you can actually see the boolit fly through the air as a silver flash/streak and for which soft wood "two by" scrap framing wood is an effective back-stop since they only stick in to the wood so that the base of the boolits are just a little bit deeper then flush on a point blank square angle shot. Back up to combat drill distance and you can go get your lead back to put back in the pot by grabbing the protruding bases and wiggling them out with your fingers.

I use them to do live fire combat drills for self-defense in my shop on a regular basis and I don't need to wear ear-plugs and anyone outside the shop would just think I was pounding nails with a hammer. Obviously, I have to manually cycle the slide for every shot but that is good practice anyway for clearing a jamb if necessary in a real situation.

I use IMR Trail Boss for those loads and I don't weigh the charges or measure them with volumetrically ~ I count cheerios literally – the charge is that light.

I see no problem with making such loads so long as one is using a very small amount of a very fast burning powder. Bullseye powder I believe is the most traditional to use for this sort of application and it is also one of the fastest burning powders available.

[lwknight]

As stated before by several others: 2 grains of any powder has about the energy of a cats sneeze. You can't make something from nothing. Its just not there.

[turbo1889]

Not trying to be an @ss on a technicality but 2 grains of IMR TB in my 380 would be within a cat's whisker (pun intended) of a maximum pressure load. There is some dependence on the size of the cartridge as far as how many grains of powder constitutes a light but safe load (on the other end of the spectrum 2 grains of powder in a 50-BMG probably wouldn’t even push the bullet out of the crimp).

My loads in question are less then a single grain.

And you could still probably kill someone with them if you tried hard enough (press the muzzle to their temple). Simple respect for a machine designed to kill and the explosive components that make it work along with a dose of common sense go a long way.

[lwknight]

I guess I should have been more specific. I had not thought about tiny cases like the 380 when I stated that.
I use 2.0 grains bullseye in 38 spl 100 grain wadcutter for the barnyard rat thumper loads. The bullet would not penetrate the tin , however it would dent it.

[Larry Gibson]

Turbo1889

That is a classic SEE. It meets all the critera and the descrption fits a SEE perfectly. Unfortunate you "killed" the Mauser but fortunate you were not injured.

Thanks for the report as this is the first SEE I've found with a cast bullet that meets all the SEE criteria.

However, a SEE cuased by a reduced loading of a slow burning powder is not in the relm of a "cat's sneeze" load. The criteria for a "cat's sneeze" load is well known but many confuse it as a "reduced" load which it is not.

Larry Gibson

[lwknight]

+1 Larry Gibson.
Big difference between reduced loads and cats sneese loads.